Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Do you think multiple front doors are cheap?
    I chuckled.

    Originally posted by clackamascoug View Post
    Don't pretend to know her financial accomplishments. She could be have been an investor in Theranos.
    "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
    "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
    - SeattleUte

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
      The calendar thing is weak IMO. I know it's evidence, and I know he has to try to disprove the assault happening on any day during that time in question. But it still seems like he's relying on it a lot.
      Yeah, it is about as weak as Dr. Ford's testimony and no collaborating witnesses. The difference is BK has witnesses that Dr. Ford named that back his calendar (and story).
      "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
      "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
      "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
      GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

      Comment


      • His hair bugs me. Also, he looks like fat John Ritter.
        Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

        There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

        Comment


        • Maybe that vote won't be delayed after all. This is one forceful denial.
          "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
          "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
          - SeattleUte

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
            The calendar thing is weak IMO. I know it's evidence, and I know he has to try to disprove the assault happening on any day during that time in question. But it still seems like he's relying on it a lot.
            Created contemporaneously as well. I know it's not going to say "tried to rape Christine tonight, couldn't figure the swimsuit out", but I think it's solid evidence.
            Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

            "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

            GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
              Do you think multiple front doors are cheap?
              :Rollie:
              Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

              "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

              GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Donuthole View Post
                His hair bugs me. Also, he looks like fat John Ritter.
                "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                  I can't handle this. If he's innocent, I just can't comprehend Ford knowingly lying. She has no reason to. But he seems very sincere.
                  Ideological reasons? In over her head and can't retreat without damaging herself further? There are lots of reasons.
                  Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                  "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                  GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Donuthole View Post
                    His hair bugs me. Also, he looks like fat John Ritter.
                    LOL
                    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
                    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
                    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
                    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dabrockster View Post
                      Of course he is relying on it! It is an historical record of his life in question.

                      While she is vague and going off memory that has not been Corroborated by anyone..

                      I find it solid vs. recollection..
                      He didn't put routine things 'brush my teeth,' 'go to church' and 'skeev on chicks at frat parties' on his calendar. Well that about wraps it up!
                      "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                        She is a professor. She's affiliated with Stanford medical school. What kind of money would she need to make upending her life for this worth it?
                        I think you are being extremely naive here. People do this stuff for many, many reasons. First, she might not be lying in her own mind. She might be absolutely certain she is telling the truth, but still be flatly wrong. it was 36 years ago, supposedly, and it was an event that she never mentioned, not once, for over 30 years and, when she did first mention it, the contemporaneous writing that recorded it doesn't say anything about Kavanaugh. She could be manufacturing memories (it happens) or she might have gradually but erroneously concluded it was Kavanaugh, or she might just be crazy on this topic. Second, if she was attacked, speaking out might be giving her some relief, some control, some victory over the experience that she suffered. Obtaining that relief might be well worth overstating or even lying about her certainty with respect to the attacker's identity. Third, she might just be lying. It happens. I have seen it happen. I have had witnesses do it. I have seen experts do it. I have seen cops do it. And all of these under oath. I have been flummoxed when it has happened. The problem is, once you tell a story like that, it is very hard to back up. So this is why we look for corroboration. And she has none. Zero. The only thing she has been certain of is that it was Kavanaugh. There is virtually nothing else --NOTHING--that she is certain about. Fourth, you are again being very naive if you think there is not a lot of possible glory and compensation ahead for her. She will be paid to speak. She will be given employment and research opportunities. She will be a popular professor. She will be the darling of a certain segment of the political world. While she will, in the near term, be facing nuts who threaten her (like Kavanaugh also faces) in the mid and long term she will likely benefit a great deal. While she does make a credible appearance, that does not mean she is truthful or accurate.
                        Last edited by creekster; 09-27-2018, 12:55 PM.
                        PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by falafel View Post
                          Created contemporaneously as well. I know it's not going to say "tried to rape Christine tonight, couldn't figure the swimsuit out", but I think it's solid evidence.


                          Originally posted by falafel View Post
                          Ideological reasons? In over her head and can't retreat without damaging herself further? There are lots of reasons.
                          I know there's reasons. But none I really want to consider being plausible.

                          This is just terrible. I really am torn.
                          "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                          "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                          - SeattleUte

                          Comment


                          • Lots of rage, then emotion. Overall, very powerful.
                            "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                            "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                            "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Commando View Post
                              He didn't put routine things 'brush my teeth,' 'go to church' and 'skeev on chicks at frat parties' on his calendar. Well that about wraps it up!
                              What a stupid response to try and disqualify a detailed historical document that reflects his life without any knowledge of what is now taking place.


                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by creekster View Post
                                I think you are being extremely naive here. People do this stuff for many, many reasons. First, she might not be lying in her own mind. She might be absolutely certain she is telling the truth, but still be flatly wrong. it was 36 years ago, supposedly, and it was an event that she never mentioned, not once, for over 30 years and, when she did first mention it, the contemporaneous writing that recorded it doesn't say anything about Kavanaugh. She could be manufacturing memories (it happens) or she might have gradually but erroneously concluded it was Kavanaugh, or she might just be crazy on this topic. Second, if she was attacked, speaking out might be giving her some relief, some control, some victory over the experience that she suffered. Obtaining that relief might be well worth overstating or even lying about her certainty with respect to the attacker's identity. Third, she might just be lying. It happens. I have seen it happen. I have had witnesses do it. I have seen experts do it. I have seen cops do it. And all of these under oath. I have been flummoxed when it has happened. The problem is, once you tell a story like that, it is very hard to back up. So this is why we look for corroboration. And she has none. Zero. The only thing she has been certain of is that it was Kavanaugh. There is virtually nothing else --NOTHING--that she is certain about. Fourth, you are again being very naive if you think there is not a lot of possible glory and compensation ahead for her. She will be paid to speak. She will be given employment and research opportunities. She will be a popular professor. She will be the darling of a certain segment of the political world. While she will, in the near term, be facing nuts who threaten her (like Kavanaugh) in the mid and long term she will likely benefit a great deal. While she does make a credible appearance, that does not mean she is truthful or accurate.
                                Well call me naïve then. Yes there are many nefarious reasons, for many people. But for her, an accomplished person who just doesn't seem to need any of this limelight, I find it hard to believe that she is lying.
                                I think I can allow that for some reason, she is just completely mistaken about the identity of her attacker. That is plausible to me, but I still give her story a lot of weight. As far as compensation is concerned, yep, I bet some will come along her way. But I find it extremely implausible that given what we know of her, she is doing this for the hope of compensation. Just very unlikely IMO.
                                "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                                "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                                - SeattleUte

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X